Who Will Be Responsible for the American Dead? – by David Horowitz

Two Guantanamo terrorists released in November were behind the Christmas Day attack in Detroit. Our security agencies ignored their own security measures and their own intelligence — including warnings from the terrorist’s father that his son was involved with terrorists.

The chief of our Department of Homeland Security is preoccupied with covering her ass, and conferring citizenship rights on enemy combatants. Instead of throwing the enemy in the darkest possible dungeon and extracting information on the next terrorist attack, both she and her president are referring to him as an “alleged” bomber and helping him to lawyer up because after all he’s only a criminal who deserves the presumption of innocence and every other right accorded to citizens of this country who might be interested in protecting it.

The answer to the question posed above is that liberals will be responsible when the next bomber actually succeeds in killing Americans. Liberals have fought the very idea that we are at war (and should use security measures appropriate in wartime) although our enemies have declared war on us. Liberals have fought to close the Guantanamo Bay holding center and to release its terrorists back onto the battlefield.

Liberals have fought to deny us the basic security techniques — harsh interrogation measures, military tribunals, terrorist profiling (which would focus scarce security resources on Muslims and not on the hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens who are traveling to do business and visit families, including for example, elderly Christians confined to wheelchairs whose prophet preached love rather than war.)

Liberals have advocated and pursued a diplomacy of apology and appeasement whose effect is to encourage our adversaries to have contempt for us and to deny support to the brave dissenters in the Muslim world who are struggling for their freedom. And liberals have conducted a relentless propaganda campaign designed to portray their own country as an unprincipled aggressor whose immediate consequence is to weaken its efforts to defend itself.

Our country is about to pay a terrible price for the orgy of liberal derangement that made the Bush administration rather than Saddam Hussein the culprit in the Iraq war and whose collective effort over the last seven years has been to dig the graves of the innocent American victims of the next terrorist attacks.

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” He is author of the newly published book The Great Betrayal (Regnery 2014), which is a chronicle of the Democrats treachery in the war on terror before 9/11 to the death of Osama bin Laden.

if you write “gaff” instead of GAFFE, do not make fun of a person who wrote “icone” – it could be a typo.Your “gaff” wasn't – you have repeated it.A gaff is an iron hook with a handle used for landing large fish. Maybe Bama was kissing that hand? Sucking the thumb?Then it might be the “gaff”.

thinker1

if you write “gaff” instead of GAFFE, do not make fun of a person who wrote “icone” – it could be a typo.Your “gaff” wasn't – you have repeated it.A gaff is an iron hook with a handle used for landing large fish. Maybe Bama was kissing that hand? Sucking the thumb?Then it might be the “gaff”.

DemocracyFirst

The US did not at the time understand the meaning of the Lebanon bombing: a resurgent Islamist movement, (one going right back to Mohammed himself), in this iteration derailing western democracy in Arab and Muslim nations. But Reagan did know it was – at least then – a local matter, one he didn`t see Americans willing to lose lives over. He was right about Americans. They, and he as president, though, were wrong. Because, as it turned out, these Islamists had Koranic based global intentions to conquer the world, as soon as they evicted western influences, democracy in particular, from the Islamic world. Crazy? Probably (although the tragedy of European demographics renders this goal not impossible). But in their efforts to succeeed, whether crazy or not, they have already, and will to a much greater degree if we lose our resolve to defeat them, foment great harm to their intended victim nations. Possibly, even, a nuclear WW3 – because Obama seems unwilling to do what is necessary to obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities and intent. Once Iran is nuclear, other Islamic nations will follow.

In contrast to Lebanon and Reagan, Clinton presided when Islamists attacked American – not foreign – sites. For, as you realize, embassies are considered domestic territory. he also had American citizens' support to seriously respond.

Moreover, an Arab nation, itself threatened by resurgent Islamism, offered to turn Bin Laden over to American authorities. But not knowing how to deal with the legal and diplomatic technicalities in dealing him, declined.

DemocracyFirst

Indeed, Obama is going after al Qaeda in Pakistan. Perhaps that's because he inadvertently, along with the rest of the disingenuous left wing, made Afghanistan the righteous war, in order to undermine the Iraqi war effort for political reasons.

But he is appeasing Islamists elsewhere, beginning with the Iranian mullahs, with whom he still – in Month Python satirical fashion – thinks he can negotiate an end to their nuclear aspirations.

He has appeased by making gratuitous apologies for small American sins, while overlooking epochal Islamic counterparts. In so doing, he encourages Muslims to see that Islamist claims to be reacting to American sins are valid, rather than a lie to cover up their real thinking: the west is now and always has been illegitimate, and Allah has commanded Muslims to make it righteously (and the rest of the world) Muslim.

He has appeased by left wing moral equivalence perspectives.

He has appeased by great demands upon Israel based on an initially shallow understanding of ME reality and history. That seems to be correcting, as reality dawns on him as he personally experiences Palestinian and Arab rejectionism. But damage was done.

He has appeased by rejecting American exceptionalism, in the sense that it is the US, because of its strength, that has safeguarded and promoted democracy – the innate antidote to Islamism.

He has appeased by projecting weakness.

TuMadre

Hijole! Que feo es!

Valerie Rawlings

Excellent article. Is it not time to say openly that Obama is a Muslim Trojan horse? He is a facilitator of terrorism and now it is clear for all to see.

http://www.free-electric-wheelchair.info Devin Teffeteller

I think I did this a while back. It brings back good memories. Nothing good seems to work the first time. How long did it take you? I look forward to your next post.

http://www.homefurnituresupplies.com/ Kitchen Carts

Thanks that was a awesome article!

http://www.inviteslockerz.net Alexis Grupe

Hi, first I want to say awesome blog. I don’t always agree with your blogposts but it’s always a great read.
Keep up the good work.

http://www.yahoosexshows.com Alberta Claus

It is a I love a few of the articles which were written, and especially the comments posted! I’ll definately be visiting again!